Relational sacrifices in romantic relationships

Abstract

Using interdependence and attachment theories, we examined the influence of attachment orientations on the association between relational sacrifices and relationship satisfaction. Romantic partners (N = 332) completed a one-time measure of attachment orientations and daily measures of relationship satisfaction and number and difficulty of relational sacrifices over 4–10 days. Difficulty of own and partner’s sacrifices was negatively associated with relationship satisfaction, and own daily number of sacrifices was positively associated with relationship satisfaction. However, these associations were stronger for individuals lower in attachment anxiety (for own sacrifices) or avoidance (for partner’s sacrifices). The findings suggest that associations between relational sacrifice and relationship satisfaction are contingent on attachment orientations and that frequent, easy sacrifices might be most beneficial to relationships.

Keywords

attachment interdependence theory relational sacrifice relationship satisfaction romantic relationships

In the course of everyday life, individuals inevitably encounter conflicts of interest within their romantic relationships. Such conflicts of interest might occur on a small scale, such as deciding what to have for dinner, or on a large scale, such as deciding where to move as a couple. According to interdependence theory (Kelley, 1979), the ways in which partners handle these interdependence dilemmas influence the dilemmas’ impact on the partners’ relationships. Partners can choose to pursue their own self-interest or give up their self-interest in order to obtain better outcomes for their partners or their relationships. The act of foregoing one’s immediate self-interest for the interest of the partner or relationship has been termed a relational “sacrifice” (Van Lange, Rusbult et al., 1997; Whitton, Stanley, & Markman, 2002). Sacrifices are thought to benefit relationships because when individuals set aside their own self-interests for the good of their partners or their relationships, they facilitate coordination in their relationships and communicate their commitment to their partners (Van Lange, Agnew et al., 1997). However, research regarding relational sacrifices has reported mixed findings regarding the impact of sacrifices on relational quality (Impett, Gable, & Peplau, 2005; Whitton, Stanley, & Markman, 2007), suggesting that sacrifice behavior might not always benefit relationships.

Interdependence theory also posits that differences rooted in individuals’ interdependence histories affect the attributions individuals make about their partners’ behaviors in interdependence dilemmas (Rusbult & Arriaga, 1997; Rusbult, Arriaga, & Agnew, 2001; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). One such difference is attachment orientation. Attachment orientations are relatively stable patterns of expectations and beliefs about partners (Fraley & Shaver, 2000); they affect individuals’ perceptions of their partners’ behaviors (Collins & Feeney, 2004; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009; Sümer & Cozzarelli, 2004) and, as a result, likely affect individuals’ reactions to relational sacrifices. The accrual of relational benefits from sacrifice behavior likely depends on individuals’ attachment orientations.

Given what is independently known about relational sacrifices and attachment orientations, the goal of the present study is to contribute to current knowledge regarding relational sacrifices by using a daily diary study to examine (a) the extent to which individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction is associated with their own and their partners’ daily reports of sacrifice behaviors and (b) the extent to which associations between daily relationship satisfaction and daily sacrifice vary as a function of individuals’ attachment orientations.

Literature review

Sacrifice and relationship quality

Interdependence occurs in relationships when partners have the ability to influence each other’s rewards and costs. When partners’ self-interests do not align, partners’ outcomes are said to be noncorrespondent. In noncorrespondent situations, partners can choose to pursue their own self-interests to the detriment of their partners’ interests or can transform their motives to respond to some element of the situation other than their own self-interests, such as their partners’ outcomes or the joint outcomes of both partners (Rusbult & Arriaga, 1997). For example, a married couple might disagree on whether to stay home and rent a movie or go out to see a movie. If the partners want to spend the evening together, but disagree on the activity in which they should engage, then those partners’ outcomes are noncorrespondent. The husband in the couple might transform his motives from the self-interested motive of going out, as he desires, to the partner-oriented motive of making his wife happy by staying in. The husband’s act of foregoing his own self-interests in order to please his wife would be considered a relational sacrifice.

Interdependence theory argues that both the individual and the partner need to be considered when examining relational sacrifice. The actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) offers a framework within which to examine the relationship between partners’ relational sacrifice behaviors and satisfaction. In relationships, partners are interdependent in that individuals’ actions affect both themselves and their partners. Therefore, outcomes can be conceptualized as a function of both individuals’ own behavior (an actor effect) and the partner effect (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006).

The choice to make relational sacrifices for one’s romantic partner influences both partners’ relational quality. Partners attend to each others’ behavior in noncorrespondent situations to discern whether or not the other partner will deviate from his or her own self-interests, and these behaviors are used in attributional processes, such as inferring a partner’s disposition or motives from his or her sacrifice behavior (Kelley, 1979). As a result, relational sacrifices allow individuals to communicate their caring and concern for their partners and relationships and to promote the development of trust (Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999). The wife in the previous example might feel more positively about her relationship as a result of her husband’s sacrifice because she infers from the sacrifice that he cares about making her happy. Transforming one’s motives and making a relational sacrifice for one’s partner not only benefits the relationship in the long term by communicating prorelationship motives to one’s partner but also benefits the relationship in the short term by facilitating coordination in the interaction (Kelley, 1979; Rusbult & Arriaga, 1997; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). In the example, the couple can avoid further discussion (and a possible argument) about what to do that night and instead begin to enjoy their evening together. Furthermore, engaging in relational sacrifice can strengthen an individual’s self-image that he or she is a good partner (Murray & Holmes, 2009).

Some previous research has supported the argument that sacrifice is associated with positive relational outcomes. For example, satisfaction with sacrifice is associated with positive relational outcomes such as relationship satisfaction (Stanley & Markman, 1992). Both own and, in some cases, partner’s satisfaction with sacrifice predict later relationship satisfaction and commitment and discriminate between distressed and nondistressed couples up to nine years after assessment of satisfaction with sacrifice (Stanley, Whitton, Sadberry, Clements, & Markman, 2006). These findings suggest that the more relational sacrifices individuals make, the more satisfied both those individuals and their partners should be in their relationships.

Similarly, sacrifice behavior has been positively associated with relationship satisfaction in romantic couples (Van Lange, Agnew, Harinck, & Steemers, 1997). In cross-sectional research, greater willingness to sacrifice is associated with higher relationship satisfaction, lower perceived quality of alternatives, and higher investment size (Van Lange, Agnew, et al., 1997; Van Lange, Rusbult, et al., 1997). Greater willingness to sacrifice is also associated with greater commitment (Etcheverry & Le, 2005; Van Lange, Agnew, et al., 1997; Van Lange, Rusbult, et al., 1997), especially in the context of high-cost sacrifices (Powell & Van Vugt, 2003). Longitudinally, relationship satisfaction is associated with willingness to sacrifice six to nine weeks later (Van Lange, Agnew et al., 1997).

Although the above research has established a fairly robust link between sacrifice attitudes and relational quality, findings regarding the association of engagement in sacrifice and relational quality are currently limited and inconsistent. One lab-based study found that higher levels of sacrifice were positively associated with relationship satisfaction (Van Lange, Rusbult, et al., 1997), while a study employing self-reports of sacrifice behavior in the past month found that higher self-reported frequency of sacrifice was associated with lower relationship satisfaction (Whitton et al., 2007). Finally, a diary study found no significant association between daily self-reported number of sacrifices and daily relationship satisfaction (conceptualized as part of positive relationship quality; Impett et al., 2005).

According to interdependence theory, relational sacrifices should benefit individuals by facilitating coordination with their partners. Furthermore, individuals’ relational sacrifices should benefit their partners by improving their partners’ immediate outcomes, communicating individuals’ caring and concerns to their partners (Rusbult & Arriaga, 1997; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003), and promoting trust (Wieselquist et al., 1999). Although results regarding the association between engagement in sacrifice and relationship quality are inconsistent, we still make a hypothesis, rather than put forth a research question, about sacrifice and satisfaction, that is in line with interdependence theory. Individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction should be positively associated with the daily number of sacrifices that both individuals and their partners make.

We hypothesize that these associations will be apparent at the level of daily reports of relationship satisfaction and sacrifice. The daily diary method is advantageous in research on relational processes because it allows for the assessment of everyday relationship processes across a wider range of situations than if individual situations were studied, thereby likely providing data that are more representative of the relationship as a whole (Duck, Rutt, Hurst, & Strejc, 1991). This method also minimizes the potential bias of retrospective reports (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003; Duck et al., 1991) and allows for the examination of within-relationship variation in processes and their consequences (Bolger et al., 2003).

Hypothesis 1: Individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction is positively associated with (a) their own and (b) their partners’ daily number of relational sacrifices.

However, sacrifice is not always beneficial to relationships. Difficult sacrifices likely undermine relationship satisfaction (Whitton et al., 2002). In the example of the married couple above, the husband might want to go out to the movies, as opposed to staying home, because a movie he has been looking forward to for months is opening that night. In this case, his decision to stay home to please his wife would likely be more difficult. Researchers have previously argued that sacrifice can have deleterious effects on relationship satisfaction when individuals sacrifice for their partners at the expense of their own needs and desires or when partners engage in sacrifices that they perceive to be difficult (Whitton et al., 2002). In support of this contention, research has found that individuals who perceive their relational sacrifices to be more harmful to themselves report lower commitment to their relationships and lower couple functioning (Whitton et al., 2007).

Although according to interdependence theory, individuals can transform their motives to respond to their partners’ needs and desires, theorists argue that total disregard for one’s own interests for the sake of one’s partner is maladaptive and that individuals must always, at some level, consider their own outcomes (Kelley, 1979). To do otherwise might foster resentment among partners (for a review, see Impett & Gordon, 2008). Drawing from this research, we expect that individuals’ relationship satisfaction will be lower when they engage in more difficult sacrifices for their partners.

Research further suggests that individuals’ relationship satisfaction will also be negatively associated with the difficulty of their partners’ relational sacrifices. For example, individuals’ perceived sacrifice harmfulness has been found to be negatively associated with their partners’ relationship satisfaction (Whitton et al., 2007). The concept of invisible support predicts that smaller acts of support by the partner are often more effective because they minimize the emotional cost of receiving support (Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000). Invisible support relies on partners’ lack of awareness of the support for it to be effective, a criterion which is not necessarily true for less difficult sacrifices. However, it is likely the case that a similar mechanism applies to sacrifice difficulty as does to invisible support, such that less difficult sacrifices exact lower emotional costs in the individual receiving support, resulting in less negative impacts on that individual’s relationship satisfaction. Individuals’ relationship satisfaction is likely diminished when their partners make difficult sacrifices because those individuals might feel guilty or ineffectual because of these sacrifices. This is not to say that difficult sacrifices always undermine relationship satisfaction but that, on average, performance of difficult sacrifices is likely to be associated with lower relationship satisfaction. We expect that individuals will report lower relationship satisfaction when their partners engage in more difficult sacrifices.

Hypothesis 2: Individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction is negatively associated with difficulty of (a) their own and (b) their partners’ daily sacrifices.

However, the association between sacrifice and relationship satisfaction is not necessarily uniform for all individuals. Interdependence theory posits that individuals’ interdependence histories will affect how they respond to interdependence dilemmas and relational sacrifices arising out of those dilemmas (Rusbult & Arriaga, 1997; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003; Rusbult et al., 2001). We discuss below how attachment orientations are likely one such moderator.

Attachment orientations

Attachment orientations are the result of affectional bonds that are based on repeated interactions between an infant and his or her primary caregiver (Bowlby, 1951). The nature of these bonds influences infants’ internal working models, which are composed of beliefs about who their caregivers are and how infants can expect their caregivers to respond when the infants need support (Bowlby, 1973). These internal working models, in turn, influence how infants attempt to attach to their caregivers. Attachment behavior is not limited to infants, however. Shaver and Mikulincer (2006, p. 251) referred to romantic relationships as “the site of some of the most important emotional bonds in adulthood.” Individuals’ attachment orientations are hypothesized to influence their expectations for and perceptions of their partners’ behaviors and, by extension, the effect those behaviors have on individuals (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009).

Attachment orientations can be conceptualized as existing on two dimensions: avoidance refers to discomfort with emotional closeness and dependence, whereas anxiety refers to intense desire for closeness and worry about partner responsiveness. “Secure” individuals are low in both attachment anxiety and avoidance (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009). Individuals who are high in attachment anxiety tend to have attachment systems that are hyperactivated, causing individuals to make controlling or instrusive attempts for partner care that are often ineffective (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009). In contrast, individuals high in attachment avoidance tend to have attachment systems that are deactivated, causing those individuals to ignore any support-seeking desires and rely only on themselves.

Attachment orientations potentially impact individuals’ perceptions of relational sacrifices. Individuals high in attachment avoidance, anxiety, or both report more maladaptive perceptions of their partners’ behaviors than do secure individuals (i.e., those low in both attachment anxiety and avoidance; Gallo & Smith, 2001; Sümer & Cozzarelli, 2004). Similarly, individuals higher in attachment anxiety and/or avoidance tend to be less satisfied with the support they receive from their partners (for a review, see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009). In supportive interactions, individuals higher in attachment anxiety or avoidance perceive less support from their partners (Collins & Feeney, 2004). Observers also rate individuals higher in anxiety or avoidance as less calmed by their partners’ support in stressful situations compared to secure individuals (Simpson, Winterheld, Rholes, & Oriña, 2007). Individuals low in perceived support (a perception that, as described, is related to high attachment anxiety and avoidance) perceive others’ support-giving behaviors as less helpful (Lakey & Cassady, 1990) and interpret ambiguous behaviors more negatively (Lakey, Moineau, & Drew, 1992) than do individuals high in perceived support (who also tend to be lower in attachment anxiety and avoidance).

Based on the evidence reviewed above, individuals’ own attachment orientations should influence the association between individuals’ relationship satisfaction and their own and their partners’ relational sacrifice. Specifically, similar to its role in perceptions of social support, individuals’ attachment orientations likely influence their perceptions of sacrifice behaviors in their relationships, such that individuals who are high in attachment anxiety or avoidance perceive those sacrifices to be less meaningful or helpful than do individuals who are low in attachment anxiety and avoidance. For example, one way that partners’ relational sacrifices are thought to benefit individuals is by communicating their partners’ caring and concern (Kelley, 1979; Rusbult & Arriaga, 1997; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). However, if individuals who are high in anxiety or avoidance perceive their partners’ sacrifices as meaningless or unhelpful, the positive effects of these sacrifices should be reduced. As a result, individuals who are higher in attachment anxiety or avoidance should benefit less from their partners’ sacrifices than do individuals who are lower in attachment anxiety or avoidance.

The association between individuals’ own relational sacrifice and satisfaction is also likely influenced by those individuals’ attachment orientations. Interdependence theorists argue that attachment orientation influences expectations regarding both motives for and engagement in relational sacrifices (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). Researchers have also argued that because attachment orientations are based on previous experiences regarding dependence on attachment figures, attachment orientations not only influence expectations for others’ behaviors but also influence models for one’s own behavior in relevant interactions (Kunce & Shaver, 1994). In support of this argument, research has found that individuals high in attachment anxiety provide low-quality, negative support and that caregivers’ attachment anxiety and avoidance are both related to more negative perceptions of support-giving interactions (Collins & Feeney, 2000). Similarly, we would expect that individuals who are high in attachment anxiety or avoidance might sacrifice in ways that are inappropriate or ineffective to the situation, and therefore derive fewer relational benefits from their sacrifices. We therefore predict that attachment orientations will moderate the relationship between individuals’ satisfaction and both own and partners’ relational sacrifice.

Although attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance represent different dimensions of individuals’ attachment systems, both dimensions influence expectations about whether or not partners will “be there” in times of need (Feeney & Collins, 2001). In line with this perspective, attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance exhibit similar effects on perceptions of support provision and receipt in previous research (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2004; Gallo & Smith, 2001). Based on this theoretical reasoning and empirical evidence, we expect both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance to attenuate the associations of own and partner’s sacrifice with relationship satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: The association between individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction and their own daily number of sacrifices is moderated by individuals’ (a) attachment anxiety and (b) attachment avoidance. Individuals who are higher in attachment anxiety or avoidance exhibit weaker associations between their relationship satisfaction and number of sacrifices.

Hypothesis 4: The association between individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction and their own daily sacrifice difficulty is moderated by individuals’ (a) attachment anxiety and (b) attachment avoidance. Individuals who are higher in attachment anxiety or avoidance exhibit weaker associations between their relationship satisfaction and sacrifice difficulty.

Hypothesis 5: The association between individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction and their partners’ daily number of sacrifices is moderated by individuals’ (a) attachment anxiety and (b) attachment avoidance. Individuals who are higher in attachment anxiety or avoidance exhibit weaker associations between their own relationship satisfaction and their partners’ number of sacrifices.

Hypothesis 6: The association between individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction and their partners’ daily sacrifice difficulty is moderated by individuals’ (a) attachment anxiety and (b) attachment avoidance. Individuals who are higher in attachment anxiety or avoidance exhibit weaker associations between their own relationship satisfaction and their partners’ sacrifice difficulty.

Method

Participants

Individuals were recruited from undergraduate Family Studies and Human Development and Communication classes at the university of the second author to complete the study for extra credit. Individuals who were in a romantic relationship were invited to participate with their partners, and individuals who were not in a romantic relationship were invited to refer a couple they knew to complete the study. To qualify for the study, individuals had to be 18 years or older, in a relationship with their romantic partner for six weeks or longer, have their own email address, and have both partners willing to complete both baseline measures and approximately one week of diary questionnaires. Couples were included in the final sample if they had at least three days of matching completed diary questionnaires. A total of 332 individuals (166 couples) completed the study. Of these, 209 individuals (62.95%) indicated that they were students. Participants reported an average age of 25.76 (SD = 10.37) and an average relationship length of 5.90 years (SD = 8.83 years, Mdn = 1.92 years). A total of 21 individuals (6.60%) reported their relationship status as casually dating, 163 (51.26%) as seriously dating, 56 (17.61%) as having a lifelong commitment, and 78 (24.53%) as married.

Procedure

Participants were directed to a web page where they completed a questionnaire containing demographics and baseline measures of attachment orientations and overall relationship satisfaction. At this time, they were given couple identification numbers that were used to match them with their partners. They were asked to return to the website to complete measures of the daily variables of interest (number and difficulty of sacrifices and relationship satisfaction) at approximately the same time for seven consecutive days.

Materials

Daily relationship satisfaction

Daily relationship satisfaction was measured using the question, “Today, how satisfied are you with your relationship with your partner?” Possible responses were on a seven-point scale from not very much or just a little (1) to very much or a lot (7). Previous research has supported the validity of single-item measures in the domains of relationship closeness (A. Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992) and life satisfaction (Antonucci, Lansford, & Akiyama, 2001), and single-item measures of subjective wellbeing have shown temporal stability (Pavot & Diener, 1993). Furthermore, the use of a one-item measure of relationship satisfaction allowed for the minimization of participant burden by keeping the survey as short as possible. The mean daily satisfaction score was 5.75 (SD = 1.49).

Overall relationship satisfaction

Overall relationship satisfaction was assessed at baseline as a control variable with the question, “Overall, how satisfied are you with your relationship with your partner?” and possible responses on a seven-point scale from not very much or just a little (1) to very much or a lot (7). The mean overall satisfaction score was 5.93 (SD = 1.23).

Daily number of sacrifices

Daily number of sacrifices was assessed by asking participants to indicate “changes for partner” made that day. The phrase “changes for partner” was used in the questionnaire instead of “sacrifices” because of the negative connotations that the word “sacrifice” might have for participants (e.g., as a negative act or a chore) and the fact that we wished to capture not only difficult but also easy relational sacrifices (which individuals might not be inclined to consider “sacrifices” because of their ease). Sacrifices can be perceived positively or negatively (Impett & Gordon, 2008; Whitton et al., 2002, 2007). Previous research has reported that individuals often do “nice” or “helpful” things for their partners without perceiving those behaviors as sacrifices per se (Impett & Gordon, 2008), despite the fact that they meet researchers’ definition of sacrifices as foregoing one’s own self-interest for that of one’s partner (Van Lange, Rusbult, et al., 1997; Whitton et al., 2002). Previous research has included sacrifice items that ask specifically about “changes” that individuals made for their partners (e.g.,Whitton et al., 2007). Based on interdependence theory’s definition of relational sacrifice, we deemed the word “change” as adequately capturing sacrifice processes while avoiding potentially negative connotations.

Specifically, participants were told, “In the past 24 hours, think about if you have made any of these changes for your partner, and respond to the following questions, unless the item does not apply.” The items were as follows: my daily schedule, household tasks, childcare, my leisure interests/activities, amount of time I spent with friends, amount of time I spent with family, communication with partner (conversations about relationship and goals), intimate behaviors (sex, affection, cuddling, holding hands), my physical appearance, my diet and exercise, my financial standing (savings, spending habits), living arrangements. These sacrifices are similar to the 10 categories of sacrifice that Impett and colleagues (2005) identified while also adding the categories of “living arrangements” and “childcare.” The number of sacrifices partners made was computed by adding the number of categories in which individuals indicated making changes for their partners on a given day. The mean number of sacrifices made on a given day was 4.83 (SD = 3.32).

Daily sacrifice difficulty

Daily sacrifice difficulty was assessed by asking, for every change individuals reported making that day in the list of 12 items given above, “How difficult or easy was it for you to make this change for your partner today?” Responses were on a seven-point scale with anchors of very difficult (-3) and very easy (+3) and a midpoint of neutral (0). Items were then reverse-scored, such that higher scores indicated greater difficulty. Following previous research that examines frequency and perceptions of relational sacrifices (Whitton, Stanley, & Markman, 2007), we computed sacrifice difficulty by calculating the average of individuals’ difficulty ratings for a given day. This method allows sacrifice difficulty to be relatively independent from number of sacrifices. The average daily sacrifice difficulty was 0.85 (SD = 1.35, α = .86).

Attachment orientations

Attachment orientations were measured in the baseline questionnaire using the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale-short form (ECR-S) (Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007). The ECR-S was constructed to measure the dimensions of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. The measure contains 12 statements, six of which are designed to measure attachment anxiety and six of which are designed to measure attachment avoidance. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which each of the statements in the measure reflected how they feel in romantic relationships in general on a seven-point scale with anchors of strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7). The item, “I do not often worry about being abandoned” was removed from the anxiety subscale because of a low correlation with other items in the subscale. The items for each scale were averaged to form measures of attachment anxiety (M = 3.42, SD = 1.26, α = .73) and attachment avoidance (M = 2.35, SD = 1.09, α = .78).

Results

Overview

The use of couples and daily measures creates concerns regarding the independence of the data. Responses are likely associated both within couples and across individuals’ daily responses, and this nonindependence can bias estimates of standard errors and significance tests (Kenny et al., 2006). An APIM was tested using multilevel modeling in SAS PROC MIXED to statistically account for this nonindependence and test the hypothesized partner effects. All predictor variables were centered around their respective grand means. Overall satisfaction and relationship length were included in the analysis as control variables (relationship status did not influence the direction or statistical significance of the observed effects). Because initial analyses revealed no significant differences in the size or direction of effects between men and women, analyses did not discriminate between men and women except to include sex as a control variable. Correlations among the variables of interest are depicted in Table 1 . Results of the analysis are in Table 2.

Table 1.

Correlations between variables of interest

	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. W Baseline Satisfaction	−.27^*	−.53^*	.61^*	−.25^*	−.36^*	.46^*	−.14	−.30^*	.39^*	−.21^*	−.31^*	−.13
2. W Attachment Anxiety		.47^*	−.41^*	.19^*	.30^*	−.15	.21^*	.18^*	−.17^*	.15	.16^*	−.09
3. W Attachment Avoidance			−.50^*	.31^*	.29^*	−.36^*	.27^*	.32^*	−.33^*	.22^*	.15^*	−.12
4. W Daily Satisfaction				.01	−.21^*	.45^*	−.18^*	−.37^*	.20^*	.07	.13	−.04
5. W Daily Number of Sacrifices					.03	−.24^*	.14	.29^*	−.04	.21^*	.02	.07
6. W Daily Sacrifice Difficulty						−.28^*	.07	.26^*	−.12^*	.03	.13^*	−.11
7. M Baseline Satisfaction							−.21^*	−.48^*	.70^*	−.20^*	−.35^*	−.13
8. M Attachment Anxiety								.35^*	−.28^*	.25^*	.13	.03
9. M Attachment Avoidance									−.53^*	.32^*	.35^*	.08
10. M Daily Satisfaction										.09^*	−.19^*	−.17^*
11. M Daily Number of Sacrifices											−.05	.14
12. M Daily Sacrifice Difficulty												.02
13. Relationship length												−

Note. W = women’s, M = men’s. In cases where reports of relationship length differed between partners, partners’ reports were averaged.

*p < .05

Table 2.

Multilevel model predicting daily relationship satisfaction from attachment orientations and own and partner’s daily number and difficulty of sacrifices

Variable	b	SE
Intercept	5.73^**	0.07
Sex (Male = 0, Female = 1)	0.04	0.07
Overall satisfaction	0.30^**	0.04
Relationship length	−0.02^*	0.01
Own number of sacrifices (H1a)	0.03^*	0.01
Partner’s number of sacrifices (H1b)	0.001	0.01
Own difficulty of sacrifices (H2a)	−0.27^**	0.03
Partner’s difficulty of sacrifices (H2b)	−0.16^**	0.03
Own attachment anxiety	−0.14^**	0.04
Own attachment avoidance	−0.13^*	0.05
Own attachment anxiety X Own number of sacrifices (H3a)	0.03^*	0.01
Own attachment avoidance X Own number of sacrifices (H3b)	0.004	0.01
Own attachment anxiety X Own difficulty of sacrifices (H4a)	−0.08^**	0.02
Own attachment avoidance X Own difficulty of sacrifices (H4b)	0.03	0.03
Own attachment anxiety X Partner’s number of sacrifices (H5a)	−0.01	0.01
Own attachment avoidance X Partner’s number of sacrifices (H5b)	−0.01	0.01
Own attachment anxiety X Partner’s difficulty of sacrifices (H6a)	0.03	0.02
Own attachment avoidance X Partner’s difficulty of sacrifices (H6b)	−0.07^*	0.03

*p < .05;

**p < .001

Hypotheses 1 and 2: Associations between satisfaction and sacrifice

We predicted that individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction would be positively associated with the number of changes individuals (H1a) and their partners (H1b) made on that day. Individuals’ daily satisfaction was positively related to their daily number of sacrifices, b = 0.03, p = .04, but unrelated to their partners’ daily number of sacrifices, b = .0001, p = .95. Hypothesis 1a was supported, and Hypothesis 1b was not supported.

We predicted that individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction would be negatively associated with their own (H2a) and their partners’ (H2b) daily sacrifice difficulty. Participants’ daily satisfaction was negatively associated with their own daily sacrifice difficulty, b = −0.27, p < .001 and negatively associated with their partners’ daily sacrifice difficulty, b = −0.16, p < .001. Hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported.

Hypotheses 3 and 4: Interaction of attachment orientations and own sacrifice

We predicted that individuals’ attachment anxiety (H3a) and attachment avoidance (H3b) would moderate the association between individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction and their own daily number of sacrifices, such that this association would be weaker as individuals’ attachment anxiety and avoidance increased. We predicted the same set of patterns for individuals’ daily sacrifice difficulty in Hypotheses 4a and 4b.

The interaction between individuals’ attachment anxiety and their daily number of sacrifices (H3a) was significantly related to individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction, b = 0.03, p = .03. Following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991), the interactions were decomposed by examining the regression coefficients for individuals’ number of sacrifices at one standard deviation above and below the mean for individuals’ attachment anxiety. As illustrated in Figure 1 , daily number of sacrifices was positively related to daily relationship satisfaction for individuals lower in attachment anxiety, b = 0.06, p = .002, and not significantly related to relationship satisfaction for individuals higher in attachment anxiety, b = −0.004, p = .86. The interaction between individuals’ attachment avoidance and their daily number of sacrifices (H3b) was not significantly related to individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction, b = 0.004, p = .76. Hypothesis 3a was supported, and Hypothesis 3b was not supported.

Figure 1.

Interaction between individuals’ attachment orientation and own daily number of sacrifices on individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction.

Regarding Hypothesis 4, the interaction between individuals’ attachment anxiety and their own daily sacrifice difficulty (H4a) was significantly associated with individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction, b = −0.08, p < .001. As illustrated in Figure 2 , examination of the effects at one standard deviation above and below the mean for attachment anxiety revealed that individuals’ daily sacrifice difficulty was more strongly related to daily relationship satisfaction for individuals who were lower in attachment anxiety, b = −0.37, p < .001, than it was for individuals who were higher in attachment anxiety, b = −0.17, p < .001. The interaction between individuals’ attachment avoidance and their daily sacrifice difficulty (H4b) was not significantly related to their daily relationship satisfaction, b = 0.03, p = .23. Hypothesis 4a was supported, and Hypothesis 4b was not supported.

Figure 2.

Interaction between individuals’ attachment orientation and own daily sacrifice difficulty on individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction.

Hypotheses 5 and 6: Interactions of attachment orientations and partners’ sacrifice

We predicted that individuals’ attachment anxiety (H5a) and attachment avoidance (H5b) would moderate the association between individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction and their partners’ daily number of sacrifices, such that this association would be weaker as individuals’ attachment anxiety and avoidance increased. For Hypotheses 6a and 6b, we predicted the same pattern of associations for individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction and their partners’ daily sacrifice difficulty.

The interaction between individuals’ attachment anxiety and partners’ daily number of sacrifices (H5a) was not significantly associated with individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction, b = −0.01, p = .41. Similarly, the interaction between individuals’ attachment avoidance and partners’ daily number of sacrifices (H5b) was not significantly associated with individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction, b = −0.01, p = .67. Hypotheses 5a and 5b were not supported.

Regarding Hypothesis 6, the interaction between individuals’ attachment anxiety and partners’ daily sacrifice difficulty was not related to individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction, b = 0.03, p = .18. The interaction between individuals’ attachment avoidance and partners’ daily sacrifice difficulty was significantly related to individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction, b = −0.07, p = .01. As illustrated in Figure 3 , examination of the effects at one standard deviation above and below the mean for attachment avoidance revealed that individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction was more strongly related to their partners’ daily sacrifice difficulty when individuals were lower in attachment avoidance, b = −0.24, p < .001, than when individuals were higher in attachment avoidance, b = −0.09, p = .02. Hypothesis 6a was not supported, and Hypothesis 6b was supported.

Figure 3.

Interaction between individuals’ attachment orientation and partners’ daily sacrifice difficulty on individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction.

Discussion

In the current study, we hypothesized that both individuals’ own and their partners’ daily difficulty and number of relational sacrifices in romantic relationships are associated with individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction, and that these associations are influenced by attachment orientations. We found support for the argument that difficulty and number of daily sacrifices are differentially associated with relationship satisfaction and that these associations vary as a function of attachment orientations. Specifically, individuals’ relationship satisfaction was negatively associated with the difficulty of their own and their partners’ sacrifices, and as expected, these associations were weaker for individuals higher in attachment anxiety (for own sacrifice difficulty) or attachment avoidance (for partner’s sacrifice difficulty). Furthermore, individuals’ satisfaction was positively related to their own number of sacrifices, but only when individuals were lower in attachment anxiety. These findings are consistent with previous theory and research regarding both sacrifice and the influence of attachment in relational processes, while also suggesting that the relationship between sacrifice and satisfaction is more complex than previous research has often acknowledged. In what follows, we discuss the findings and their implications in the context of existing theory and research. We conclude with a discussion of the study’s limitations and strengths and recommendations for future research.

Sacrifice and satisfaction

The findings that both own and partner’s daily sacrifice difficulty were negatively related to individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction is consistent with interdependence theory’s argument that while individuals in interdependent relationships are concerned with their partners’ outcomes, they must also attend to their own outcomes in order to be satisfied in the relationship (Kelley, 1979). Similarly, previous research has supported the idea that sacrifices are detrimental to relationship quality when individuals perceive those sacrifices negatively. For example, Whitton and colleagues (2007) found that individuals’ perceptions of the harmfulness of their sacrifices were negatively associated with both their own and their partners’ marital adjustment. The current findings also expand on previous research by examining perceptions of sacrifice on a daily basis, as opposed to retrospectively. Such an approach allowed us to both minimize potential retrospective bias and examine the attitudes of interest (sacrifice difficulty and satisfaction) as they co-occur on a daily basis.

We also found that the number of sacrifices individuals engage in on a given day was positively associated with those individuals’ relationship satisfaction on that day. Only a few studies have examined the relationship between number of sacrifices and relationship satisfaction, and results have been inconsistent, with studies alternately finding a positive (Van Lange, Rusbult, et al., 1997), negative (Whitton et al., 2007), or nonsignificant (Impett et al., 2005) association between engagement in sacrifice and relationship quality.

Of these three studies, the one that is most similar in methodology to our own is that of Impett and colleagues (2005), who assessed individuals involved in romantic relationships using a daily diary method. They found no association between individuals’ number of sacrifices and their relationship quality. One possible explanation for the difference in these findings is the nature of the sample. In general, our sample had been in their relationships four years longer than those in Impett and colleagues’ sample. It is possible that our sample had higher levels of commitment or couple identity in their relationships, both of which are thought to positively influence outcomes of sacrifice by encouraging individuals to transform their motives from concern for themselves to concern for their partners (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003; Whitton et al., 2002).

However, the number of sacrifices that individuals’ partners engaged in was not associated with individuals’ daily relationship satisfaction. One explanation for this finding could be that, on a daily basis, individuals are generally unaware of the relational sacrifices their partners make. Interdependence theory argues that relational sacrifice only benefits its recipient to the extent that the recipient is aware of the sacrifice (Rusbult & Arriaga, 1997; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). Thus, awareness might play a key role in the association between individuals’ relationship satisfaction and their partners’ number of relational sacrifices.

Our findings also point to the importance of distinguishing between number and difficulty of sacrifices. While the former was positively related to daily relationship satisfaction, the latter was negatively related to daily relationship satisfaction. This distinction is supported by interdependence theory, which argues that although sacrifice can benefit individuals and their relationships by facilitating coordination and signaling prorelationship motivations, chronic subversion of one’s own outcomes for one’s partner will be detrimental to both the individual and the relationship (Kelley, 1979). Similarly, Whitton and colleagues (2002, p. 170) caution against high levels of sacrifice in relationships, arguing that “immoderate giving of the self may be perceived as overwhelming or smothering by the partner, who is then motivated to establish distance in the relationship.” Distinguishing between the effects of number and difficulty of sacrifices assists us in understanding when sacrifices will be helpful or harmful to relationships. According to our findings, either a high number of sacrifices or perceptions of sacrifice as easy, on a daily basis, are likely most beneficial to daily relationship satisfaction, while perceptions of sacrifices as more difficult on a daily basis appear to undermine daily relationship satisfaction.

The role of attachment

Attachment orientation influenced the extent to which sacrifice was associated with satisfaction. The observed associations between the three significant daily sacrifice variables and daily relationship satisfaction were stronger when individuals were lower in attachment anxiety (for own difficulty or number of sacrifices) or attachment avoidance (for partner’s sacrifice difficulty). These findings are consistent with interdependence theory’s hypothesis that dependence – a necessary condition for noncorrespondence of partners’ outcomes – activates individuals’ attachment-oriented beliefs, and these beliefs influence individuals’ reactions to and interpretations of sacrifice-relevant situations (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). Our findings are also consistent with social support research, which generally finds that individuals high in attachment anxiety and/or avoidance are less attuned to their partners’ support behaviors (for a review, see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Attachment anxiety influenced the associations between daily relationship satisfaction and one’s own reports of relational sacrifice for both daily difficulty and number of relational sacrifices. High attachment anxiety is characterized by extreme worry about partner responsiveness and one’s value to one’s partner (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009). It seems likely that the relationship satisfaction of individuals higher in attachment anxiety is less negatively impacted by the difficulty of their own sacrifices because such individuals are motivated by intense needs for intimacy that might override concerns for their own self-interests. At the same time, their worry about their partner’s responsiveness and their value to their partner might make it harder for them to enjoy the positive benefits of relational sacrifices, such as anticipation of reciprocity and positive feelings associated with doing something nice for one’s partner. Indeed, the positive relationship observed in the current study between the number of sacrifices individuals made for their partners on a given day and individuals’ relationship satisfaction on that day was rendered nonsignificant for individuals who were one standard deviation above the mean on the measure of attachment anxiety. These findings suggest that while attachment anxiety might temporarily buffer some negative effects associated with sacrificing for one’s partner, it also appears to erase other positive effects. Furthermore, while engaging in difficult sacrifices without concern for one’s own wellbeing might benefit relationship satisfaction on a daily basis, such behavior likely has harmful long-term consequences such as reduced health and wellbeing and increased depression (see Helgeson & Fritz, 1998 for a review).

Individuals high in attachment avoidance are uncomfortable with emotional closeness and prefer to avoid dependence (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009). They also tend to report lower levels of commitment to their relationships (Treboux, Crowell, & Waters, 2004). Thus, it makes sense that participants who were higher in attachment avoidance were less impacted, in terms of relationship satisfaction, by the difficulty of their partners’ sacrifices. This finding suggests that highly avoidant individuals might undermine their relationships by failing to respond appropriately to the difficulty of their partners’ sacrifices or to appropriately reciprocate their partners’ sacrifices.

It is also noteworthy that attachment anxiety influenced associations between individuals’ relationship satisfaction and their own relational sacrifices, while attachment avoidance influenced associations between individuals’ relationship satisfaction and their partners’ relational sacrifices. Although future research is needed to clarify the existence and mechanisms of any effects, is seems possible that anxiety and avoidance influence relationships differently by alternately influencing actor or partner effects, respectively, in relational processes.

Limitations and strengths

The first limitation of the current study is that individuals were asked to report on changes that they made for their partners. As such, the data cannot speak to partners’ perceptions or awareness of these sacrifices per se. The interplay of sacrifices and perceptions of those sacrifices is likely complex and probably exerts its influence on relationship satisfaction in multiple ways. Perceptions of partners’ sacrifices are likely important to the effects of those sacrifices. Furthermore, individuals might be inclined to self-enhance by indicating that they make changes for their partners more frequently than is actually the case. If attachment orientations differentially impact such bias, that bias could affect the findings.

Second, the current study addresses the role of daily sacrifices in relationship satisfaction. As such, it cannot speak to how large, one-time sacrifices might impact relationship satisfaction. Effects of everyday and one-time sacrifices likely differ in important ways (Impett & Gordon, 2008). For example, research has found that commitment predicts individuals’ engagement in hypothetical high-cost, but not low-cost, sacrifices (Powell & Van Vugt, 2003). It is currently unclear whether and how larger, one-time sacrifices and smaller, everyday sacrifices differentially impact relationship satisfaction.

Several strengths exist in the current study as well. First, we included both students and nonstudents. Although some studies have included samples of married or cohabiting couples (Whitton et al., 2007), typically, studies of sacrifice are comprised of college students (e.g., Impett et al., 2005; Wieselquist et al., 1999). Second, we assessed both relational sacrifice and satisfaction on a daily basis – an advantageous method in that it minimizes the potential bias of retrospective reports (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003; Duck et al., 1991) and allows for the examination of within-relationships variation in processes and their consequences (Bolger et al., 2003). In contrast, we assessed attachment orientations at one time given that attachment orientations have been found to comprise relatively stable patterns of expectations and beliefs about partners (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 for a review). Finally, given the theoretical importance of both partners’ responses and outcomes according to interdependence theory (Kelley, 1979), we tested models that included data from individuals and their partners.

Future directions

Our method was designed to capture everyday sacrifices that individuals make for their partners. As individuals engage in a given sacrifice on a frequent basis or in a routine manner (e.g., by changing the time they go to bed to accommodate their partners), partners might become habituated to the sacrifice and no longer recognize that their partners are making the sacrifice. As a result, routine sacrifices should exert less impact on partners’ relationship satisfaction as time goes by. Such an effect would be consistent with interdependence theory’s notion of comparison level, defined as “the quality of outcomes an individual has come to expect” (Rusbult & Arriaga, 1997, p. 224). Individuals experience satisfaction when their outcomes are greater than their comparison levels, but as individuals gain experience in their relationships over time, their comparison levels adjust to reflect those experiences. As a result, the discrepancy between their outcomes and comparison level declines (Rusbult & Arriaga, 1997). This pattern of habituation suggests that a routine relational sacrifice might be most influential when individuals first begin to engage in the sacrifice. Longitudinal research over a longer time period could assess the extent to which sacrifices exert weaker effects on relationships as they are routinely enacted.

Future research should also explore how perceptions of partners’ sacrifices vary as a function of attachment orientations and how these perceptions then affect individuals’ responses to their partners’ sacrifices. Although the current findings provide a first step by finding that attachment orientations influence the association between relational sacrifice and satisfaction, it is unclear precisely how this influence occurs. For example, several mechanisms have been identified in research regarding social support, such as lower awareness of support (Collins & Feeney, 2004) and lower satisfaction with support (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2009) among individuals higher in attachment anxiety or avoidance. These same mechanisms might affect perceptions of partners’ relational sacrifices.

Attachment orientations might also influence the association between relational sacrifice and relationship satisfaction by influencing whether and how individuals ask their partners to make relational sacrifices. Research on support seeking has generally found that individuals high in attachment avoidance are more likely to use indirect support-seeking behaviors than are individuals low in attachment avoidance (Collins & Feeney, 2000). Such a tendency is relevant to the concept of invisible support, which argues that individuals benefit most from support when they are not aware of the provision of that support (Bolger, Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000). It is possible that the attenuation of the negative association between partners’ sacrifice difficulty and individuals’ relationship satisfaction for individuals high in attachment avoidance could be explained by those individuals’ reduced tendency to directly request that their partners make relational sacrifices. Future research should explore whether or not relational sacrifices are requested as one possible mechanism for the differences observed in this study.

Conclusion

We conclude, then, that attachment orientations are important to consider when explaining the influence of daily relational sacrifice on daily relationship satisfaction. We also emphasize the importance of including both daily number and daily difficulty of sacrifices given that each showed important and distinct patterns with attachment orientations in associations with daily relationship satisfaction. Finally, we conclude that given that associations between relational sacrifice and relationship satisfaction are contingent on attachment orientations, certain types of relational sacrifices might be beneficial for some, but not all, individuals.

Footnotes

This research was supported in part by grants to the second author from the McClelland Institute at the University of Arizona.

References

Antonucci

T. C.

Lansford

J. E.

Akiyama

(2001). Impact of positive and negative aspects of marital relationships and friendships on well-being of older adults. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 68–75. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0502.

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596.

Bolger

Davis

Rafaeli

(2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579–617.

Bolger

Zuckerman

Kessler

R. C.

(2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 953–961. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.953.

Bowlby

(1951). Maternal care and mental health. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.

Bowlby

(1973). Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053–1073. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1053.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2004). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 363–383. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.363.

Duck

Rutt

D. J.

Hurst

M. H.

Strejc

(1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228–267.

10.

Etcheverry

P. E.

(2005). Thinking about commitment: Accessibility of commitment and prediction of relationship persistence, accommodation, and willingness to sacrifice. Personal Relationships, 12, 103–123. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00104.x.

11.

Feeney

B. C.

Collins

N. L.

(2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 972–994.

12.

Fraley

R. C.

Shaver

P. R.

(2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154.

13.

Gallo

L. C.

Smith

T. W.

(2001). Attachment style in marriage: Adjustment and responses to interaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 263–289. doi:10.1177/0265407501182006.

14.

Helgeson

V. S.

Fritz

H. L.

(1998). A theory of unmitigated communion. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 2, 173–183.

15.

Impett

E. A.

Gable

S. L.

Peplau

L. A.

(2005). Giving up and giving in: The costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 327–344.

16.

Impett

E. A.

Gordon

A. M.

(2008). For the good of others: Toward a positive psychology of sacrifice. In Lopez

S. J.

(Ed.), Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people, Vol 2: Capitalizing on emotional experiences, Praeger perspectives (pp. 79–100). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.

17.

Kelley

H. H.

(1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

18.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

19.

Kunce

L. J.

Shaver

P. R.

(1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships. In Bartholomew

Perlman

(Eds), Attachment processes in adulthood, (pp.337–343). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

20.

Lakey

Cassady

P. B.

(1990). Cognitive processes in perceived social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 337–343. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.337.

21.

Lakey

Moineau

Drew

J. B.

(1992). Perceived social support and individual differences in the interpretation and recall of supportive behaviors. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 11, 336–348.

22.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

23.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2009). An attachment and behavioral systems perspective on social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 7–19. doi:10.1177/0265407509105518.

24.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

(2009). The architecture of interdependent minds: A motivation-management theory of mutual responsiveness. Psychological Review, 116, 908–928. doi:10.1037/a0017015.

25.

Pavot

Diener

(1993). The affective and cognitive context of self-reported measures of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 28, 1–20. doi:10.1007/BF01086714.

26.

Powell

Van Vugt

(2003). Genuine giving or selfish sacrifice? The role of commitment and cost level upon willingness to sacrifice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 403–412.

27.

Rusbult

C. E.

Arriaga

X. B.

(1997). Interdependence theory. In Duck

(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (2nd ed.) (pp. 221–250). Cambridge, MA: John Wiley & Sons.

28.

Rusbult

C. E.

Arriaga

X. B.

Agnew

C. R.

(2001). Interdependence in close relationships. In Fletcher

Clark

(Eds), The Blackwell handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2) (pp. 359–387). Oxford: Blackwell.

29.

Rusbult

C. E.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

(2003). Interdependence, interaction and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059.

30.

Shaver

P. R.

Mikulincer

(2006). Attachment theory, individual psychodynamics, and relationship functioning. In Vangelisti

A. L.

Perlman

(Eds), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 251–271). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Simpson

J. A.

Winterheld

H. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Oriña

M. M.

(2007). Working models of attachment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 466–477. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.466.

32.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 595–608.

33.

Stanley

S. M.

Whitton

S. W.

Sadberry

S. L.

Clements

M. L.

Markman

H. J.

(2006). Sacrifice as a predictor of marital outcomes. Family Process, 45, 289–303. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2006.00171.x.

34.

Sümer

Cozzarelli

(2004). The impact of adult attachment on partner and self-attributions and relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 11, 355–371. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00087.x.

35.

Treboux

Crowell

J. A.

Waters

(2004). When “new” meets “old”: Configurations of adult attachment representations and their implications for marital functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40, 295–314.

36.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Agnew

C. R.

Harinck

Steemers

G. E. M.

(1997). From game theory to real life: How social value orientation affects willingness to sacrifice in ongoing close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1330–1344.

37.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Drigotas

S. M.

Arriaga

X. B.

Witcher

B. S.

Cox

C. L.

(1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1373–1395. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1373.

38.

Wei

Russell

D. W.

Mallinckrodt

Vogel

D. L.

(2007). The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 187–204.

39.

Whitton

S. W.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2002). Sacrifice in romantic relationships: An exploration of relevant research and theory. In Vangelisti

A. L.

Reis

H. T.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

(Eds), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 156–181). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Whitton

S. W.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2007). If I help my partner, will it hurt me? Perceptions of sacrifice in romantic relationships. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 26, 64–92. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.1.64.

41.

Wieselquist

Rusbult

C. E.

Foster

C. A.

Agnew

C. R.

(1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 942–966. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942.